On Monday, May 19, travelers at London Heathrow Airport will find themselves racing to catch flights not at "Terminal 5," but instead at "Terminal Samsung Galaxy S5."

The awkward mouthful is the result of a complete branding takeover orchestrated by Samsung to promote its recently released Galaxy S5 smartphone. According to Samsung’s press release, the "revolutionary" rebranding will last for two full weeks and will see all Samsung’s name and branding plastered all over "the signage, wayfinding, website, and every single digital screen at the UK's newest terminal to promote the launch of its iconic Galaxy S5 mobile."

Unless you are actually sight-impaired, it will be impossible to avoid seeing Samsung advertisements while traversing the terminal:

The initiative includes all signage throughout the Terminal Samsung Galaxy S5 terminal—at the entrance and drop-off locations, in the lounges, at security and at the gates. In addition, all 172 digital panels in the main terminal, gate rooms and baggage reclaim areas will feature the rebrand 'Terminal Samsung Galaxy S5' and images of the Galaxy S5 smartphone.

Terminal 5’s page on Heathrow’s website won’t be exempt from the marketing effort; the press release notes that "Online visitors to the Terminal 5 site will also experience a rebranded 'Terminal Samsung Galaxy S5' home page."

According to The Verge, Heathrow Airport spokespersons are sanguine about the marketing effort. "Samsung want to call it Terminal Samsung Galaxy S5," said the spokesperson, "and we are relaxed about that." The spokesperson explained that Samsung hasn’t purchased permanent naming rights to the terminal—the brandsplosion is temporary and tied to Samsung’s larger Galaxy S5 marketing campaign efforts.

Further Reading

Review: Samsung tries to do too much, neglects to finetune design and software for users.

Those marketing efforts are expansive and enormous: the Korean electronics giant’s total advertising budget in 2013 was a ludicrous $14 billion, and even though the company has stated that it would decrease that budget in 2014, it still has billions and billions of marketing dollars to spend. However, whether or not these kinds of overwhelming brand blitzes actually drive any additional revenue for Samsung is a murky question. "The stronger, more differentiated the product, the less it needs to be propped up by advertising," said a former Nokia business manager to Reuters.

The idea of a dead-eyed smiling counter attendant handing over a boarding pass and cheerily announcing, "Sir, your flight will be boarding at gate A1 in Terminal Samsung Galaxy S5!" feels profoundly disturbing; Samsung is digging its fingers deep into your travel experience and forcing you to engage with it. Advertising is already pervasive in airports, with most terminals featuring huge ad posters (most of which seem to be for Barracuda's e-mail management boxes), but in this case Samsung is ensuring that you cannot travel through the terminal without its name and its product's name being spoken at you. Anyone going through "Terminal Samsung Galaxy S5" will have to hear the fully branded name over loudspeakers and see it on their tickets—not to mention all the signage and the 172 digital panels.

Now is probably as good a time as any to point out that when it comes to high-flying branding exercises, Samsung’s got nothing on Japanese drink company Otsuka: that company is getting ready to plant a can of powdered Pocari Sweat sports drink on the surface of the moon as a marketing stunt. Welcome to the future.

Update: It turns out that in spite of the wording of Samsung's press release, the advertising campaign will not affect wayfinding or terminal signage. It will instead be limited to normally-available ad locations. A spokesperson for Heathrow made the following clarification in a statement to iMore.com: "Heathrow Terminal 5's signage and passenger wayfinding has not changed....Samsung have rented advertising space in Terminal 5 with a tongue-in-cheek campaign using the line: 'Terminal Samsung Galaxy S5'."

148 Reader Comments

I can never really explain in my own head why Samsung is successful. Sure, some of their products are solid, and they're generally priced well, but they generally don't produce anything a thousand other people aren't producing either:a) betterb) cheaperc) prettieror d) all of the above

Their industrial design ranges from poor to adequate. Why do people buy their stuff again?

I have no particular love for my Samsung TV, though that's a hand-me-down.

I can never really explain in my own head why Samsung is successful. Sure, some of their products are solid, and they're generally priced well, but they generally don't produce anything a thousand other people aren't producing either:a) betterb) cheaperc) prettieror d) all of the above

Their industrial design ranges from poor to adequate. Why do people buy their stuff again?

I have no particular love for my Samsung TV, though that's a hand-me-down.

(1) The Galaxy flagships are on every major US carrier, and pretty pretty much all regional carriers. That's something LG, Sony, etc can't claim.

(2) Removable batteries and microSD slots are popular among Android power users, and Samsung is the only Android OEM that equips its flagships with both (at least on the US market).

(3) For all its aesthetic inconsistencies, Touchwiz actually adds some real benefit to stock Android. Quick-toggles in the notification shade. Split-screen multitasking. File browser ("my files"). Some useful widgets (the assistive light and alarm clock widgets are better than what was out of the box on my wife's Moto X). Asking "what has Touchwiz ever done for Android" is like "what have the Romans ever done for us" in The Life of Brian.

(4) Their screens have been consistently good, at least in their high-end phones. Sony, I'm looking at you.

(5) Their cameras have been consistently good, at least in their high-end phones. HTC, I'm looking at you.

(6) Samsung's Knox is actually quite effective for security-conscious businesses. I believe Samsung's Galaxy flagships are the only Android devices that are Department-of-Defense-approved.

(7) Although their materials aren't as luxurious as their competitors, their phones have a good reputation for build quality and reliability. HTC has had some issues with this in the past couple years.

I can never really explain in my own head why Samsung is successful. Sure, some of their products are solid, and they're generally priced well, but they generally don't produce anything a thousand other people aren't producing either:a) betterb) cheaperc) prettieror d) all of the above

Their industrial design ranges from poor to adequate. Why do people buy their stuff again?

I have no particular love for my Samsung TV, though that's a hand-me-down.

I can never really explain in my own head why Samsung is successful. Sure, some of their products are solid, and they're generally priced well, but they generally don't produce anything a thousand other people aren't producing either:a) betterb) cheaperc) prettieror d) all of the above

Their industrial design ranges from poor to adequate. Why do people buy their stuff again?

I have no particular love for my Samsung TV, though that's a hand-me-down.

I don't want to live in this future. I want the one with lunar colonies.

It is LAX airport, year 2018. You are waiting for a spaceship to space colony.On the huge wall TV sign screen, you see : An attractive Asian female flashing suggestive wink and smile, holding a smartphone in her hand.

Voice: A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

Movie did it wrong. She is not Japanese women. She turn out to be Korean.

I don't see the problem. I mean, one of London's landmark buildings is named for a mobile operator and nobody complains about that; the Premiership is named after a bank, every F1 race is prefixed with a big name sponsor.

It's hardly the first marketing exercise like this and it won't be the last.

For the life of me, I can never understand why decision makers couldn't, say, dedicate a terminal (or hospital or sports arena, for that matter) to an outstanding citizen, leader, humanitarian, or player -"sponsored by [insert corporate name here]".

I guess is just goes to show how companies and their products are more important than people.

I can never really explain in my own head why Samsung is successful. Sure, some of their products are solid, and they're generally priced well, but they generally don't produce anything a thousand other people aren't producing either:a) betterb) cheaperc) prettieror d) all of the above

Their industrial design ranges from poor to adequate. Why do people buy their stuff again?

Samsung's electronics division spends more money marketing its products than Apple, Dell, HP, Microsoft and Coca Cola spend combined marketing all of their products. When you buy a Samsung product, about 20% the purchase price pays for the advertising that convinced you to buy it.

With a 14 billion dollar budget why don't they do something awesome like fund a Mars rover. Call it the Samsung Galaxy rover and make sure there's an on-board camera for lots of selfies with the logo prominently displayed.

I can never really explain in my own head why Samsung is successful. Sure, some of their products are solid, and they're generally priced well, but they generally don't produce anything a thousand other people aren't producing either:a) betterb) cheaperc) prettieror d) all of the above

Their industrial design ranges from poor to adequate. Why do people buy their stuff again?

When you buy a Samsung product, about 20% the purchase price pays for the advertising that convinced you to buy it.

Quote:

There are a lot of consumer products where that is the case.

There are. Monster, Beats, and other brand-first products run that way. Not sure of your point; there's no reason to be defensive of Samsung. They have an advertising-based business model rather than a product- or value-based model. Nothing wrong with that; it's just the answer to the original question of "why do people buy their products when they're pretty mediocre?"

Correction: Had used Q4 rather than FY2012 for Samsung. Point still stands, though.

Our Dear Leader, the prime minister, went on a big business push trip to China. His biggest success was selling large quantities of pig sperm. This rebranding does not surprise me in the least.

Samsung is Korean.

Um, I know. I was just looking at it from the POV of why Heathrow would do it. That Heathrow would let Samsung do this fits the 'sell everything including the granny, and even if it annoys everyone' that is the core of this country now.

Did you know that Alan Bond is making a space plane?Did you know that he's got a working prototype?Do you think Britain is at the forefront - thinking of the industrial and technological benefit this would bring our nation? Alan Bond is working with Americans now.

Another technology our engineers couldn't get the thick locals to support. Just like computers, the web, and the jet engine. Instead, we're selling pig sperm to China and Terminal 5 to Samsung.

The idea of a dead-eyed smiling counter attendant handing over a boarding pass and cheerily announcing, "Sir, your flight will be boarding at gate A1 in Terminal Samsung Galaxy S5!" feels profoundly disturbing; Samsung is digging its fingers deep into your travel experience and forcing you to engage with it.

I dunno, anyone who enjoys sports has been dealing with this for a while. The Astros had Enron Field for a couple years. The University of Louisville has the KFC Yum! Stadium. I could go on and on.

Yeah not seeing while this is such an issue other than it being a mouthful. Heathrow airport is owned by a public company where this sort of thing is par for the course.

Are we talking about Samsung and their products? Yes. Now many of us techies are holding our noses because Samsung's approach isn't subtle or sophisticated.But the average non techie user doesn't care about that.

The non techie user sees the Samsung name on buses, billboards, at the Academy Awards show and at an airport terminal. When this average person goes to a store to buy a phone, they will remember the name Samsung. Mission accomplished as far as the company is concerned.

Well I was thinking about that Note III, but TBH stuff like this makes me want to buy something else. It's like a protest vote, at least I will be voting with my wallet, just to make myself feel better. Also the phones are close enough, so, well - this is a better reason than most to start avoiding Samsung products if possible, at least for the time being.

The future where unavoidable utilities are branded with consumer brainwashing material... sad.

Well I was thinking about that Note III, but TBH stuff like this makes me want to buy something else. It's like a protest vote, at least I will be voting with my wallet, just to make myself feel better. Also the phones are close enough, so, well - this is a better reason than most to start avoiding Samsung products if possible, at least for the time being.

The future where unavoidable utilities are branded with consumer brainwashing material... sad.

This sounds like a losing strategy to me. You get arguably worse phone and keep annoying Samsung advertisement (it's not like Samsung is going to stop advertising because of you). Is not it better to buy the best phone for you and enjoy it?

Well I was thinking about that Note III, but TBH stuff like this makes me want to buy something else. It's like a protest vote, at least I will be voting with my wallet, just to make myself feel better. Also the phones are close enough, so, well - this is a better reason than most to start avoiding Samsung products if possible, at least for the time being.

The future where unavoidable utilities are branded with consumer brainwashing material... sad.

This sounds like a losing strategy to me. You get arguably worse phone and keep annoying Samsung advertisement (it's not like Samsung is going to stop advertising because of you). Is not it better to buy the best phone for you and enjoy it?

"Best" is usually very subjective. You place a high value on large screen size, total system memory, replaceable batteries, and expandable storage. I place a high value on build quality, ethical corporate behavior (not fudging benchmark numbers, for example), and the actual performance of the end product based upon how all of the parts are engineered together (having a 2GHz+ SoC doesn't mean much if a competing SoC performs far better at a lower clock.)

Well I was thinking about that Note III, but TBH stuff like this makes me want to buy something else. It's like a protest vote, at least I will be voting with my wallet, just to make myself feel better. Also the phones are close enough, so, well - this is a better reason than most to start avoiding Samsung products if possible, at least for the time being.

The future where unavoidable utilities are branded with consumer brainwashing material... sad.

This sounds like a losing strategy to me. You get arguably worse phone and keep annoying Samsung advertisement (it's not like Samsung is going to stop advertising because of you). Is not it better to buy the best phone for you and enjoy it?

"Best" is usually very subjective. You place a high value on large screen size, total system memory, replaceable batteries, and expandable storage. I place a high value on build quality, ethical corporate behavior (not fudging benchmark numbers, for example), and the actual performance of the end product based upon how all of the parts are engineered together (having a 2GHz+ SoC doesn't mean much if a competing SoC performs far better at a lower clock.)

To each their own.

Well, that's why I said "best for you". My point is that unlike everything else that you listed "corporate behavior" probably should not be the factor here unless there is something really immoral. Otherwise you simply penalize yourself.

Well I was thinking about that Note III, but TBH stuff like this makes me want to buy something else. It's like a protest vote, at least I will be voting with my wallet, just to make myself feel better. Also the phones are close enough, so, well - this is a better reason than most to start avoiding Samsung products if possible, at least for the time being.

The future where unavoidable utilities are branded with consumer brainwashing material... sad.

This sounds like a losing strategy to me. You get arguably worse phone and keep annoying Samsung advertisement (it's not like Samsung is going to stop advertising because of you). Is not it better to buy the best phone for you and enjoy it?

"Best" is usually very subjective. You place a high value on large screen size, total system memory, replaceable batteries, and expandable storage. I place a high value on build quality, ethical corporate behavior (not fudging benchmark numbers, for example), and the actual performance of the end product based upon how all of the parts are engineered together (having a 2GHz+ SoC doesn't mean much if a competing SoC performs far better at a lower clock.)

To each their own.

Well, that's why I said "best for you". My point is that unlike everything else that you listed "corporate behavior" probably should not be the factor here unless there is something really immoral. Otherwise you simply penalize yourself.

I disagree. Corporate behavior should be at the top of the list. Especially in instances where they've been caught lying to customers (the benchmarks in Samsung's case). It's the only way these entities will realistically change. Then again, customers also have to have a backbone.

I can never really explain in my own head why Samsung is successful. Sure, some of their products are solid, and they're generally priced well, but they generally don't produce anything a thousand other people aren't producing either:a) betterb) cheaperc) prettieror d) all of the above

Their industrial design ranges from poor to adequate. Why do people buy their stuff again?

I have no particular love for my Samsung TV, though that's a hand-me-down.

(1) The Galaxy flagships are on every major US carrier, and pretty pretty much all regional carriers. That's something LG, Sony, etc can't claim.

(2) Removable batteries and microSD slots are popular among Android power users, and Samsung is the only Android OEM that equips its flagships with both (at least on the US market).

(3) For all its aesthetic inconsistencies, Touchwiz actually adds some real benefit to stock Android. Quick-toggles in the notification shade. Split-screen multitasking. File browser ("my files"). Some useful widgets (the assistive light and alarm clock widgets are better than what was out of the box on my wife's Moto X). Asking "what has Touchwiz ever done for Android" is like "what have the Romans ever done for us" in The Life of Brian.

(4) Their screens have been consistently good, at least in their high-end phones. Sony, I'm looking at you.

(5) Their cameras have been consistently good, at least in their high-end phones. HTC, I'm looking at you.

(6) Samsung's Knox is actually quite effective for security-conscious businesses. I believe Samsung's Galaxy flagships are the only Android devices that are Department-of-Defense-approved.

(7) Although their materials aren't as luxurious as their competitors, their phones have a good reputation for build quality and reliability. HTC has had some issues with this in the past couple years.

Lee Hutchinson / Lee is the Senior Reviews Editor at Ars and is responsible for the product news and reviews section. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX.